The White House has formally removed the Associated Press (AP) from its longstanding preferential role in the presidential press pool, following a high-profile legal dispute and federal court ruling. The move, announced Wednesday through internal memos, effectively nullifies the AP’s automatic inclusion in limited-access events, travel, and briefings—a position it had occupied for decades.
The dispute began after the AP refused to adopt the administration’s terminology change for the Gulf of Mexico, which President Trump renamed the Gulf of America through executive order. While some media outlets and digital map providers complied with the change, the AP continued using the traditional name in its reporting, triggering retaliatory action from the White House.
The administration began barring AP journalists from press events and pool assignments, prompting the AP to file suit in federal court, citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. Last week, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled in favor of the AP, stating that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination—even in a nonpublic forum such as the White House press briefing room.
McFadden’s order directed the administration to place the AP on an “equal playing field” with other similarly situated news organizations.
Rather than reinstate the AP to its historical slot, the administration restructured the press pool entirely. Under the new policy, no special slots are reserved for wire services such as the AP or Reuters. Instead, two generic print media positions will be available, with all outlets required to compete for access equally.
This effectively removes the AP’s privileged position without technically violating the court’s instruction, which mandated equal treatment but not the restoration of past practice. A source close to the administration characterized the maneuver as “legally defensible” and said the policy had been carefully worded to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The AP, in a statement to CNN, denounced the change as a “grave disservice to the American people,” accusing the administration of sidestepping constitutional protections through administrative policy shifts.
The decision is a significant blow to wire services, which rely on guaranteed pool access to provide real-time coverage for their global subscribers. The AP distributes content to more than 3,000 U.S. clients and 900 international outlets, making its presence in the press pool critical for syndicating presidential coverage.
With the elimination of wire-specific assignments, the AP and Reuters will now compete against newspapers, digital publications, and magazines for a shrinking number of available spots—a sharp break from tradition that may limit the reach and speed of White House reporting.
Media freedom advocates warn the decision sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the executive branch to manipulate press access under the guise of neutrality. Though the court ruling affirmed the AP’s rights, the administration’s policy shift demonstrates how structural changes can be used to circumvent judicial directives.
The White House, in a statement, said it complied with the ruling by providing a “level field” for all outlets, and emphasized that the AP now stands alongside Reuters, Bloomberg, and others under the new framework.
However, critics argue that the redefinition of “equality” masks an intent to punish dissent and chill journalistic independence.
